Cargando…

Dominant versus non-dominant hand during simulated infant CPR using the two-finger technique: a randomised study

AIMS: The aim of this randomised study was to compare the two-finger technique (TFT) performance using dominant hand (DH) and non-dominant hand (NH) during simulated infant CPR (iCPR). METHODS: 24 participants performed 3-min iCPR using TFT with DH or NH followed by 3-min iCPR with their other hand....

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Gugelmin-Almeida, Debora, Clark, Carol, Rolfe, Ursula, Jones, Michael, Williams, Jonathan
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Elsevier 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8244244/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34223397
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resplu.2021.100141
_version_ 1783715893730082816
author Gugelmin-Almeida, Debora
Clark, Carol
Rolfe, Ursula
Jones, Michael
Williams, Jonathan
author_facet Gugelmin-Almeida, Debora
Clark, Carol
Rolfe, Ursula
Jones, Michael
Williams, Jonathan
author_sort Gugelmin-Almeida, Debora
collection PubMed
description AIMS: The aim of this randomised study was to compare the two-finger technique (TFT) performance using dominant hand (DH) and non-dominant hand (NH) during simulated infant CPR (iCPR). METHODS: 24 participants performed 3-min iCPR using TFT with DH or NH followed by 3-min iCPR with their other hand. Perceived fatigue was rated using visual analogue scale. Primary outcomes - (i) difference between DH and NH for compression depth (CCD), compression rate (CCR), residual leaning (RL) and duty cycle (DC); (ii) difference between first and last 30 s of iCPR performance with DH and NH. Secondary outcomes - (i) perception of fatigue between DH and NH; (ii) relationship between perception of fatigue and iCPR performance. RESULTS: No significant difference between DH and NH for any iCPR metric. CCR (DH: P = 0.02; NH: P = 0.004) and DC (DH: P = 0.04; NH: P < 0.001) were significantly different for the last 30 s for DH and NH. Perception of fatigue for NH (76.8 ± 13.4 mm) was significantly higher (t = −3.7, P < 0.001) compared to DH (62.8 ± 12.5 mm). No significant correlation between iCPR metrics and perception of fatigue for DH. However, a significant correlation was found for CCR (r = 0.43; P = 0.04) and RL (r = −0.48; P = 0.02) for NH. CONCLUSION: No difference in performance of iCPR with DH versus NH was determined. However, perception of fatigue is higher in NH and was related to CCR and RL, with no effect on quality of performance. Based on our results, individuals performing iCPR can offer similar quality of infant chest compressions regardless of the hand used or the perception of fatigue, under the conditions explored in this study.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8244244
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Elsevier
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-82442442021-07-02 Dominant versus non-dominant hand during simulated infant CPR using the two-finger technique: a randomised study Gugelmin-Almeida, Debora Clark, Carol Rolfe, Ursula Jones, Michael Williams, Jonathan Resusc Plus Simulation and Education AIMS: The aim of this randomised study was to compare the two-finger technique (TFT) performance using dominant hand (DH) and non-dominant hand (NH) during simulated infant CPR (iCPR). METHODS: 24 participants performed 3-min iCPR using TFT with DH or NH followed by 3-min iCPR with their other hand. Perceived fatigue was rated using visual analogue scale. Primary outcomes - (i) difference between DH and NH for compression depth (CCD), compression rate (CCR), residual leaning (RL) and duty cycle (DC); (ii) difference between first and last 30 s of iCPR performance with DH and NH. Secondary outcomes - (i) perception of fatigue between DH and NH; (ii) relationship between perception of fatigue and iCPR performance. RESULTS: No significant difference between DH and NH for any iCPR metric. CCR (DH: P = 0.02; NH: P = 0.004) and DC (DH: P = 0.04; NH: P < 0.001) were significantly different for the last 30 s for DH and NH. Perception of fatigue for NH (76.8 ± 13.4 mm) was significantly higher (t = −3.7, P < 0.001) compared to DH (62.8 ± 12.5 mm). No significant correlation between iCPR metrics and perception of fatigue for DH. However, a significant correlation was found for CCR (r = 0.43; P = 0.04) and RL (r = −0.48; P = 0.02) for NH. CONCLUSION: No difference in performance of iCPR with DH versus NH was determined. However, perception of fatigue is higher in NH and was related to CCR and RL, with no effect on quality of performance. Based on our results, individuals performing iCPR can offer similar quality of infant chest compressions regardless of the hand used or the perception of fatigue, under the conditions explored in this study. Elsevier 2021-05-27 /pmc/articles/PMC8244244/ /pubmed/34223397 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resplu.2021.100141 Text en © 2021 The Author(s) https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
spellingShingle Simulation and Education
Gugelmin-Almeida, Debora
Clark, Carol
Rolfe, Ursula
Jones, Michael
Williams, Jonathan
Dominant versus non-dominant hand during simulated infant CPR using the two-finger technique: a randomised study
title Dominant versus non-dominant hand during simulated infant CPR using the two-finger technique: a randomised study
title_full Dominant versus non-dominant hand during simulated infant CPR using the two-finger technique: a randomised study
title_fullStr Dominant versus non-dominant hand during simulated infant CPR using the two-finger technique: a randomised study
title_full_unstemmed Dominant versus non-dominant hand during simulated infant CPR using the two-finger technique: a randomised study
title_short Dominant versus non-dominant hand during simulated infant CPR using the two-finger technique: a randomised study
title_sort dominant versus non-dominant hand during simulated infant cpr using the two-finger technique: a randomised study
topic Simulation and Education
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8244244/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34223397
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resplu.2021.100141
work_keys_str_mv AT gugelminalmeidadebora dominantversusnondominanthandduringsimulatedinfantcprusingthetwofingertechniquearandomisedstudy
AT clarkcarol dominantversusnondominanthandduringsimulatedinfantcprusingthetwofingertechniquearandomisedstudy
AT rolfeursula dominantversusnondominanthandduringsimulatedinfantcprusingthetwofingertechniquearandomisedstudy
AT jonesmichael dominantversusnondominanthandduringsimulatedinfantcprusingthetwofingertechniquearandomisedstudy
AT williamsjonathan dominantversusnondominanthandduringsimulatedinfantcprusingthetwofingertechniquearandomisedstudy